Introduction
There has been a wide debate on whether conformity and the subsequent compliance leads to complete change in victim’s behaviour. According to this statement believers, its is very possible to force another individual to change behaviour in both short and long run. The other sides claims concentrates on the impossibility of individuals changing behaviour, especially in the long run despite pressure they could be going through.
The only similarity between the two sides is that change of behaviour in the short run is perfectly possible. Individuals changing behaviour in the short run do so because of the need to get out of the discomforting situation they could be undergoing. As a contribution to this debate, concurrent sections of this paper will use various theories to illustrate the possibility and impossibility change in behaviour taking place under conformity and compliance conditions.
This will be achieved by investigating various aspects of theories used. There are three specific theories will be used in this investigation. First would be Lewin’s 3-Step Change theory, which claims that behavioural change takes places in three distinct stages, all of which are concurrently connected with each other. The second theory to be used is Lippitt’s 7-steps theory. Unlike Lewin’s, this one claims of behavioural change process being gradual and thus the four extra steps. Reasoned Action and Planned behaviour theory will also get scrutinized. The three theories will get scrutinised, compared and the results reported accordingly.
Main Text
According to Petty (2005) the process of changing behaviour, whether by choice or though force, starts with individuals involved acknowledging the importance of undergoing change. In the context of conformity and compliance, the individuals involved embark on a tough process of convincing themselves that change of behaviour will have to happen in order to overcome the challenges they could be going through.
These individuals must also understand that change in behaviour is not happen to please those influencing the process, but for their own self interests. Indeed, notes Asch (2003) self interests is the driving force that make people to embark on changing the behaviours they had held tightly. Equally, lack of self interest to overcome challenges leads to individuals taking more time with making behavioural change decisions. This short run denial of necessity in behaviour change leads to the individuals being pressed harder until they show signs of compliance and conformity.
The reality of being adamant to behavioural change to being pressed into conformity and compliance leads to conclusion that this is a process that takes several stages to accomplish. It is a short process to some individuals who change behaviour shortly after being explained of the importance, of after slight conformity and compliance pressure (Taylor 2007). On the other hand, the change process takes longer and many more stages among individuals who are adamant to change.
This develops from the extra, and maybe, several kinds of pressure that has tom be exerted on the individuals until they deicide to conform, comply, and change in accordance to the individuals driving the process (Markels 2004). Bottom line holds that it is up to the individuals to embark on the elaborate process of conforming. Initially, the process of behavioural change is entirely determined by the individuals under pressure to change. This changes as individuals become more resistant to change and therefore those behind conformity efforts embark on exerting more pressure.
As discussed in the introduction, the Lewin’s 3-Step theory takes behavioural change as a process forced by various forces that individuals have to confront. These driving forces are divided into two, driving and restraining forces. The driving forces refer to factors influencing individuals to embark on changing behaviour. The individuals involved could be in a position to understand and recognise the forces. The retraining forces are the ones which affect the progress towards behaviour change. Individuals facing pressure to change are more likely to understand restraining forces, because this is what that drives them to resist change.
Understanding and differentiating both forces help in improving the progress toward conforming to change. However, according to Sherif (2006) the balance between the two forces could either slow down or quicken the behavioural change process. More driving forces mean lead to individuals changing behaviour more quickly, whereas more restraining forces slows down the process. Therefore, individuals taking longer to change have experience greater restraining forces, whereas those embarking on quicker change experience stronger driving forces. It is up to the individuals involved in the process to determine ways of balancing the two antagonising forces.
Lewin’s 3 forces are especially used in the process balancing driving and restraining forces, the goal being to create a conducive environment that would enhance change. In the first step, participants, those experiencing of driving force, embark on unfreezing the existing situation (Cialdini 2005). The first force is used in ensuring that all matters pertaining to the balance between the two forces are achieved. Considering that the stages are supposed to bring change, step one is utilised to increase driving forces significantly while suppressing the restraining forces, which results to the individuals involved to start changing in accordance to desires of respective drivers of change (Meyers 2003).
The second step involves monitoring the new behaviour being acquired by the individuals. This is indeed an important stage, because it provides indications whether the desired behavioural change are being seen in the individuals. In case there is no change in behaviour, the forces (driving and restraining) forces get balanced yet again. For instance, slower rate of behaviour change leads to adjustment of the forces towards more driving forces, whereas rapid behavioural change beyond the desired levels lead to shift of the balance towards restraining forces. This delicate balancing continues until the desired rate of change is achieved (Latan 2003).
Observing the rate of change and comparing with the desired rates results to gradual tweaking until respective subjects change behaviour completely. The monitoring is a two way process, one side involving those driving change and the other involving the individuals being subjected to the process. These conflict between the two parties lead to ever changing gage system, which becomes subject to constant changes. The third step in Lewin’s 3-Step theory deals with refreezing the process, which means subjecting the individuals to specific observations. This helps in evaluating the progress made in the first two stages.
Unlike in Lewin’s three stage process, Lewitt, Wesley and Watson developed seven stages, which illustrate the way change process happens. Their first step involves diagnosing the problem that could be affecting the process of change. This is in understanding that only by understanding the stamping blocks can stakeholders embark on making the necessary changes. Any failure to see the problems could lead to implementing strategies that could only worsen the situation further.
The second stage involves assessing the ability of respective subjects to successfully engage in the change process. Any deficiency seen in being able to conclusively participate in the process should be worked on promptly. Most importantly, agents of change (those forcing conformity and compliance) should assess levels of motivation seen in the individuals being subjected to change (Galanter 2007). However, many are the instances where these individuals would lack such motivation.
This calls for agents of change to embark on developing ways and means of generating the lacking motivation, whether through force or encouragement. Third, the change agents have to illustrate their commitment to change, which, according to Tesser (2005) helps in subjects seeing the important of change. Other than showing commitment, the change agents are obligated to ensure having all the resources that could be needed in the process, failure of which could lead to subjects failing to take the process with the deserved seriousness. The fourth step involves developing strategies that would finally get implemented in later stages.
Levine and Morelan (2005) notes that subjects should be informed of the strategies that would be implemented and therefore prepare themselves independently. Indeed, just pumping the subjects with strategy after strategy has a greater likelihoods of developing resistance to change. A successful conformity and compliance program are therefore the one that have subjects best interests get considered in various levels of development and implementation.
Fifth, the change agents embark on ensuring that roles of each of them and subjects are completely defined and understood by team members. Communication is the key on this stage, and thus calls for agents to pass all important information to subjects (Gil-White 2005). This has the advantage of developing a mentality among subjects that agents understand their needs are are consequently doing the best consider respective interests.
In addition to communicating important information to respective individuals, agents should further consider developing ways and means of incorporating subjects’ opinion in the strategies to be employed. In fact, notes Aronson (2005) subjects thoughts should be sought even when it is clear they would not be included in the accruing strategies. It is not until all these factors are considered that agents embark on implementing the strategies. The sixth stage involves overseeing whether strategies implemented to in step five get to bear the desired fruits. Change agents therefore start observing the new behaviour being depicted by respective individuals.
This is the compared with the desired level of change. This could also be achieved through feedback mechanisms with the individuals whose behaviours are being changed. However, agents should remember that quality of feedback depends on the respective relationships with subjects. Treating subjects with higher degrees of respect and concern leads to collaboration throughout the process. This step also includes looking back into the previous steps.
The efficiency of their implementation and bearing results should especially be counter checked. Though the results can hardly get implemented at this later stage, change agents are provided with a review on factors they handled well and those that need significant improvement.
Change agents should further remember that the seven steps are vital, and thus none among them should be taken for granted. The seventh step involves gradual withdrawal of help from the subjects, and therefore leave them to complete the change process. It is hereby assumed that subjects have undergone an elaborative learning processes and can therefore deal with the challenges independently. However, the end controlled behavioural change should not be taken to mean that help will not be accessed. In fact, change agents should always be available for advisory any time they are needed. Undertaking such an important ending process leads to subjects developing confidence that eventually generate complete change.
Conclusion
The theory of Reasoned Action and Planned Behaviour is also vital in explaining the possibility of compliance and conformity; it states that performance in behavioural change depends on respective individuals’ will to change (Griffis 2004). This means there is little that respective agents can do to help the individual embark on entirely dropping the old behaviours for a set of acceptable new ones. Such a process could take long time in situations where agents push subjects into conforming. The best route to undertake in such a situation is slowly convincing subjects on the need to start changing, because of the many positive results that would develop.
The theory thus proposes on slow incremental changes that allow subjects to eventually understand that someone wants to help overcome specific behavioural challenges. The theories explained herein indicate that successful change processes are the ones involving the subjects. It has been established that making them part of the process generates important motivation that leads to collaborating with the change agents.
Listening to subjects concerns during the process should further be considered. Change agents are further obligated show confidence in their dealing with subjects issues. Most importantly, they should illustrate professionalism and have all the resources and support needed to accomplish behavioural change tasks. When this happens, subjects are more likely to respect the work being done and therefore collaborate.
The long run results of following into the bests practices illustrated in various theories is mutually beneficial to all the stakeholders involved: subjects benefit by changing from their old undesired behaviours to more acceptable ones, subjects family and friends benefits from renewed relationships, and agents feel more encouraged of seeing that it is completely possible to change people’s behaviour through conformity and compliance.
References
Aronson, E. 2005, Social Psychology of Compliance, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Asch, S. 2003, ‘Social pressure and opinions,’ Scientific American, vol. 54, pp. 243-260.
Cialdini, R. B.2005, Techniques & Principles of Social Influence” McGraw-Hill, New York.
Diener, F. 2006, Deindividuation effects of conformism,’ Social Psychology, vol. 33, 140-195.
Galanter, M. 2007, Healing Faith & Coercion in Cults, OUP, Oxford.
Gil-White, F. 2005, ‘Conformism and ethnicity in society,’ The Monist, vol. 88, 166-250.
Griffis, D. 2004, A Primer on Social Psychology, Routledge, New York.
Latan, B. 2003, ‘Investigating Social Impact and Psychology,’ American Psychologist, vol. 36 , No. 1, 269-309.
Levine, J. & Moreland, R. 2005, Group Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Markels, A. 2004, Backfire.. Web.
Meyers, D. 2003, How Social Psychology Society, McGraw-Hill, Holland.
Petty, R. 2005, Attitude Change, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Sherif, M. 2006, Social Norms Psychology, Harper Collins, New York.
Taylor, D. 2007, Social Psychology, Prentice Hall.
Tesser, B. 2005, Advanced Social Psychology Research, McGraw-Hill, New York. Inc.